One of the sayings that my kids say is, "I don't matter". It's in referrence to the fact that we ask them if a certain person gave them permission to do something and they respond, "I don't matter". What they are really saying is, "the person says it doesn't matter if I do it or not". We have to keep correcting this slight miscommunication. But each time we find ourselves emphasizing, "you do matter". I found this simple statement, "I don't matter" to be a very profound and thought provoking statement.
In the last year or so we have seen bank bailouts, recession, unemployment, war, controversy and more and more bad news. People have talked since I was a kid that they feel like they are a number. Governments get bigger, corporations get bigger and people keep feeling... smaller.
The fact is that even if a large corporation or a goverment leader doesn't know your name... somebody does. You do matter... to that person.
REM had a song with a simple message, "Everybody hurts... sometime". It's a simple message but cuts to the heart of every human being. Everybody does hurt... sometime. Maybe not today... Maybe not tomorrow... But sometime...
There was a story of a very sucessful wrestling coach who was admired by many. He had a great young family and great job. But one day, just before Christmas, something happened. I don't know the particulars. Maybe an argument. Maybe not. But something sparked something inside him and he killed his family, lit his house on fire, and killed himself. It was a shocking story of sadness. It didn't have to happen that way.
Many people in this holiday season are struggling with loss, pain and frustration. It has been a difficult year for many. Some it's a job situation, or lack of one. Some it's seeing their hopes and dreams desimated by the recession. Like sandcastles being washed away by the sea these dreams seemed to just erode over time. Others it could be a personal loss, like a loved one that died. But the simple truth is that there are a lot of people hurting... A lot of pain.
It's easy to paint on a smile... We, as humans, can sometimes go about normal life like actors on a stage... We put on a good show... Sometimes its just enough to get through another day... But one of the points to this blog is to simply state to those dealing with pain, loss and frustration: You do matter.
Even if you only touched one life in this world... you brought joy... you brought something special to that person... You do matter!
When you go about the hustle and bustle of the holiday season try to give someone a smile. Maybe wish them a Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday or just to have a great day... or anything else that you like to tell people in this time of year. A smile is like a rainbow after a stormy day. You can't imagine what a kind word can do for someone aching inside. Try to give a listening ear to someone who is crying out for some attention. There have been many times that I have found that people just wanted sometime to listen. You can be that someone. This time of year should be less about us and more about others. And remember:
People Matter... I matter.. you matter... we're not numbers... or faces... or just names on lists... We matter. People Matter.
J.W.B.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Guerrilla Filmmakers Didn't Need the Digital Revolution
As I was wrapping up post-production for "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" I ended up on a phone conversation with my brother who had helped with the editing, compostiting and CGI special effects for the film. In the conversation I blurted out, "if the digital revolution hadn't come along when it did I wouldn't have been able to make this movie". My brother's response was a very interesting comment because for the last couple years I have found myself going back to it over and over again. He replied, "you, me, we didn't need the digital revolution to make a movie... We would have found a way even if the digital revolution hadn't happened."
Recently many filmmakers have commented that SM and the internet will be the answer to the marketing and distribution delemia that independent filmmakers are experiencing. I disagree. SM and the internet are tools, not the answer. When we put our reliance on the tools the tools become the master and we are a slave to them. If Thomas Edison couldn't find an answer... he made one.
The thing about trailerblazers are that the blaze a new trail. In their quest of cutting through the brush and creating a new path they risk having major pitfalls but also benefit by creating a path that others will take. Anyone else that goes down that path isn't a leader but a follower of the path. We all find points in our journey of filmmaking where everything that can go wrong does go wrong and you are pushed into a corner. You can not proceed with the "business as usual" mode. It is at this point, when everything logical will not fix the problem, that you have to "get creative" to beat the odds. This is when you blaze a new trail, even if a small, minor one. Too many filmmakers, I fear, when facing the impossible, instead of "getting creative"... just back down.
Here's a great historical story to illustrate my point:
The year is 1776, the British army are held up in Boston while the rebels (Americans) lead by Washington are in the counrty. They are basically waiting for the other side to make the next move. It's a stalemate. Winter is setting in, but Henry Knox went to Fort Ticonderoga, in up-state New York, to retrive some cannons. Everyone thought it was impossible for him to bring all these canons across the mountains of Vermont, but he was able to inspire all the people of the countryside in Vermont to get involved.
Another person named Alexander Hamilton inspired Washington to set up the canons at night, up on a hill, just across the bay from Boston. The idea was to bring hay stack blocks, quietly at night, up the hill. They were to make a wall with this blocks which would freeze in place. They would also bring empty barrels up the hill as well. These barrels were then filled with dirt and put on the outside of the wall. When the British were to wake up in the morning, they would see the American's entrenched on the hill with the canons pointed at them. The assumption would be that the British would then demand an assult on the hill. The Americans, being low on gun powder, woud instead roll the barrels down the hill, knocking the British soldiers over like bowling pins, winning the battle...
In the morning the British saw the Americans entrenched on the top of the hill and retreated to England for several months. They knew they could not beat Washington at Boston. The plan had worked.
My point isn't a leason in history but to show that creativity can beat the odds. The internt, digital revolution or any other invention we come up with isn't the answer. Our never ending determination mixed with our imaginations can do wonders. A guerrilla filmmaker doesn't back down, they improvise. Now is the time for a real filmmaking revolution.
Recently many filmmakers have commented that SM and the internet will be the answer to the marketing and distribution delemia that independent filmmakers are experiencing. I disagree. SM and the internet are tools, not the answer. When we put our reliance on the tools the tools become the master and we are a slave to them. If Thomas Edison couldn't find an answer... he made one.
The thing about trailerblazers are that the blaze a new trail. In their quest of cutting through the brush and creating a new path they risk having major pitfalls but also benefit by creating a path that others will take. Anyone else that goes down that path isn't a leader but a follower of the path. We all find points in our journey of filmmaking where everything that can go wrong does go wrong and you are pushed into a corner. You can not proceed with the "business as usual" mode. It is at this point, when everything logical will not fix the problem, that you have to "get creative" to beat the odds. This is when you blaze a new trail, even if a small, minor one. Too many filmmakers, I fear, when facing the impossible, instead of "getting creative"... just back down.
Here's a great historical story to illustrate my point:
The year is 1776, the British army are held up in Boston while the rebels (Americans) lead by Washington are in the counrty. They are basically waiting for the other side to make the next move. It's a stalemate. Winter is setting in, but Henry Knox went to Fort Ticonderoga, in up-state New York, to retrive some cannons. Everyone thought it was impossible for him to bring all these canons across the mountains of Vermont, but he was able to inspire all the people of the countryside in Vermont to get involved.
Another person named Alexander Hamilton inspired Washington to set up the canons at night, up on a hill, just across the bay from Boston. The idea was to bring hay stack blocks, quietly at night, up the hill. They were to make a wall with this blocks which would freeze in place. They would also bring empty barrels up the hill as well. These barrels were then filled with dirt and put on the outside of the wall. When the British were to wake up in the morning, they would see the American's entrenched on the hill with the canons pointed at them. The assumption would be that the British would then demand an assult on the hill. The Americans, being low on gun powder, woud instead roll the barrels down the hill, knocking the British soldiers over like bowling pins, winning the battle...
In the morning the British saw the Americans entrenched on the top of the hill and retreated to England for several months. They knew they could not beat Washington at Boston. The plan had worked.
My point isn't a leason in history but to show that creativity can beat the odds. The internt, digital revolution or any other invention we come up with isn't the answer. Our never ending determination mixed with our imaginations can do wonders. A guerrilla filmmaker doesn't back down, they improvise. Now is the time for a real filmmaking revolution.
Friday, October 23, 2009
It Ain't a Charity! (Filmmaking)
In the recent discussions on how independent filmmakers can make a financial return on their films, since the collapse of what people called "Indywood", the word "donation" has come up frequently. I'm not talking about raising your funding by "donation" but when people use it as a way for the filmmaker to recoup their cost. People will come up with creative ways for the films to get out into the public and then they will say, "ask for a donation"... instead of charging a ticket fee?
I had someone suggest this to me a year ago when I was going on tour. They said I should show the film at a certain college and ask for donations. But this was also a unique situation. The college, because of it's own insitution's rules, could not allow someone to do a paid performance. The filmmaker could screen the film and ask for donations.
My point is this, "It ain't a charity!" (my wife would say that's not proper English and it isn't, but it gets my point across). You can't go up to a gas station, fill up your tank, and then offer to give them a five dollar donation. You can't go to the grocery store, fill up your cart and hand them a five dollar donation either... so why do we, as filmmakers, allow ourselves to get to this point?... where we hang our hopes on the word "donation"?
Ask yourself as a filmmaker: Do I really believe the film I made is worth paying for? If the answer is "yes", why are you giving it away for FREE? Now if you don't think your film is worth someone paying money for then just give it away for free and ask for a donation.
One of the things I learned when reading the book: "My Life in Advertising and Scientific Advertising" (By Claude Hopkins), was the fact that the word FREE implies valuelessness. The assumption people have when they see the word free, especially if they haven't experienced the "value" before, is that "it must not be good enough to buy". Trust me, I've tested the theory before...
I did some test screenings of my film at a local library, just to see the reactions from the crowd. I was stupid enough to put on the sign, "FREE" screening. Being as determined as I was, I stood on the street corner of this town, holding the sign. But the brilliance was that I stood there holding the sign. People didn't know it was my film, they just figured someone who made it paid me to advertise on the street corner. And standing there I was able to hear people's reactions. Since they didn't know it was mine they were able to tell me their honest opinion. The word "FREE" was killing my chances of getting anyone to show up. They kept saying, "if it's free it must not be very good". The kicker was that I couldn't charge anything for the screening, it was another one of those "situations" (the library rules stated I couldn't do any exchange of money on the premises). That was ok, it was just a test screening.
My point is this: We are better than this! There are so many options out there that we should consider the "donation" option as a last resort to recoup our losses.
Now it's different if you raised the production budget by donation because it was about a certain cause and then you show it for free (like a documentary). But we're talking about feature films where the filmmaker had investors or their own money involved. (Yes, I did show AMNESIA on RebFest.com for free, for a week, and did an encore of the film on the jbmovies.com site for a week too. But this was about building some online buzz. I no longer do this anymore, and RebFest will no longer show entire feature films for free, but will let people watch the first 15 mins for free. Filmmakers need to make a living!)
I know I will make some people angry that I posted this. But someone needs to give a response before this becomes an indie-film-epidemic.
What do you think?
I had someone suggest this to me a year ago when I was going on tour. They said I should show the film at a certain college and ask for donations. But this was also a unique situation. The college, because of it's own insitution's rules, could not allow someone to do a paid performance. The filmmaker could screen the film and ask for donations.
My point is this, "It ain't a charity!" (my wife would say that's not proper English and it isn't, but it gets my point across). You can't go up to a gas station, fill up your tank, and then offer to give them a five dollar donation. You can't go to the grocery store, fill up your cart and hand them a five dollar donation either... so why do we, as filmmakers, allow ourselves to get to this point?... where we hang our hopes on the word "donation"?
Ask yourself as a filmmaker: Do I really believe the film I made is worth paying for? If the answer is "yes", why are you giving it away for FREE? Now if you don't think your film is worth someone paying money for then just give it away for free and ask for a donation.
One of the things I learned when reading the book: "My Life in Advertising and Scientific Advertising" (By Claude Hopkins), was the fact that the word FREE implies valuelessness. The assumption people have when they see the word free, especially if they haven't experienced the "value" before, is that "it must not be good enough to buy". Trust me, I've tested the theory before...
I did some test screenings of my film at a local library, just to see the reactions from the crowd. I was stupid enough to put on the sign, "FREE" screening. Being as determined as I was, I stood on the street corner of this town, holding the sign. But the brilliance was that I stood there holding the sign. People didn't know it was my film, they just figured someone who made it paid me to advertise on the street corner. And standing there I was able to hear people's reactions. Since they didn't know it was mine they were able to tell me their honest opinion. The word "FREE" was killing my chances of getting anyone to show up. They kept saying, "if it's free it must not be very good". The kicker was that I couldn't charge anything for the screening, it was another one of those "situations" (the library rules stated I couldn't do any exchange of money on the premises). That was ok, it was just a test screening.
My point is this: We are better than this! There are so many options out there that we should consider the "donation" option as a last resort to recoup our losses.
Now it's different if you raised the production budget by donation because it was about a certain cause and then you show it for free (like a documentary). But we're talking about feature films where the filmmaker had investors or their own money involved. (Yes, I did show AMNESIA on RebFest.com for free, for a week, and did an encore of the film on the jbmovies.com site for a week too. But this was about building some online buzz. I no longer do this anymore, and RebFest will no longer show entire feature films for free, but will let people watch the first 15 mins for free. Filmmakers need to make a living!)
I know I will make some people angry that I posted this. But someone needs to give a response before this becomes an indie-film-epidemic.
What do you think?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
American Dreams ...and Filmmaking?
With every film project that I consider, every script I write, I find myself contiplating the universal question: "why?". Why should I make this into a film? Why should I even write the script? Am I willing to spend a year, two years, three years or more to make this a reality? If this was my last film to ever make, would it be worth it?
Paranormal Activity is gaining attention in theaters across the country and presently has made about 7.2 million in ticket sales and now is being screened at 160 movie theaters. I applaud their sucess but also find myself wondering... is that it? Don't get me wrong, I think gaining this much attention for a film is awesome. But besides watching the film, possibly scaring the crap out of yourself, and going home to have nightmares... what else does the film do? Will it inspire you to go out and feed the hungry? Help the homeless? Change the world?.. or even change yourself?
The other headline I see every night is that unemployment in the US is now at 9.5%. With unemployment rising, homelessness and financial stress will rise. I am not stating this to depress you, but instead to mention another project that a fellow film company is producing:
Someplace Like America
Basic synopsis:
Paper mill shuts down in New Hampshire and we see the aftermath and how people deal with this dramatic change in the life of the community that relied on the mill to survive....
I had heard about this project back in March. I immediatly found the story interesting. What I liked was that the company that is producing the film, Either/or Films, isn't interested in just creating stories that entertain, but that also provoke people to think and be inspired. There's alot of hopeless in this world. We need to talk about the things people care about like unemployment and the fear of joblessness. We need to also inspire people to believe that things can get better.
Check out Someplace Like America here: SLA and become a fan on their FB fan page. Please spread the world about this incredible story. I believe that this could possibly be one of the most important projects of 2010... What do you think?
Paranormal Activity is gaining attention in theaters across the country and presently has made about 7.2 million in ticket sales and now is being screened at 160 movie theaters. I applaud their sucess but also find myself wondering... is that it? Don't get me wrong, I think gaining this much attention for a film is awesome. But besides watching the film, possibly scaring the crap out of yourself, and going home to have nightmares... what else does the film do? Will it inspire you to go out and feed the hungry? Help the homeless? Change the world?.. or even change yourself?
The other headline I see every night is that unemployment in the US is now at 9.5%. With unemployment rising, homelessness and financial stress will rise. I am not stating this to depress you, but instead to mention another project that a fellow film company is producing:
Someplace Like America
Basic synopsis:
Paper mill shuts down in New Hampshire and we see the aftermath and how people deal with this dramatic change in the life of the community that relied on the mill to survive....
I had heard about this project back in March. I immediatly found the story interesting. What I liked was that the company that is producing the film, Either/or Films, isn't interested in just creating stories that entertain, but that also provoke people to think and be inspired. There's alot of hopeless in this world. We need to talk about the things people care about like unemployment and the fear of joblessness. We need to also inspire people to believe that things can get better.
Check out Someplace Like America here: SLA and become a fan on their FB fan page. Please spread the world about this incredible story. I believe that this could possibly be one of the most important projects of 2010... What do you think?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The REAL problem with Indie Films.
For anyone following the news on the independent film business they can see that now, more than ever, that industry is struggling to survive. Almost every week there are blogs, newspapers or magazines that are writting some articles about a confrence, festival, or other event where people in the industry debate about how to fix the industry. I think before we try to fix the problem we should try to figure out what the problem really is.
Filmmaker's claim the problem is that many independent distributors (mini-majors, etc) have either gone bankrupt or are no longer acquiring films. The distributors would probably claim the fact that in prior years they were unable to make a profit off the films they did acquire is the problem. I believe both of these are "symptoms" of the problem.
What's the problem? Simple. No one knows, outside the indie festival circuit, what most of these films are or whether they are worth watching. Just because a film comes out on DVD or runs in a theater doesn't mean it's something you or I want to watch. It just means that it came out on video or had a theatrical release.
But we need more than just marketing/advertising; we need to apply the simple principles of "Tested Advertsing" to reach the right niche market for each film and to build a fan base of support for it. Claude Hopkins (the father of the "coupon") created a simple concept using coupons to track what type of ads (on the coupon) drew the largest amount of customers. By doing this he was able to find out what was the best way to promote a product to the consumer.
If indies were able to have their potential audience, beyond the indie crowd that gathers at the fests, interact with their material and react to it, they would be able to gather info on how to best promote their film. This would help the filmmaker understand who would want it the most. There is an audience out there for every film, some are large audiences, some are small.
The problem that the distributors had was that they would see a film at a fest gain some huge attention, but then wouldn't see the same thing when it was distributed nation wide to the main stream audience. Why would that happen? Simple. The film probably catored better to a niche market amongst the indie crowd and less amongst the main stream crowd. The distributors needed to "test" the film more to see who to really reach out to and how to commicate the message of what the film offers best.
There are tons of distribution avenues that filmmakers can take. Some are considering the DIY approach, others are looking to ideas like openindie.com. My consern is that if your film ends up at a theater, but no one knows about it until it arrives, why would anyone be coming to see it?
Imagine a film like "Blair Witch" builds a huge amount buzz about the film and then was released it for people to watch PPV or with limited commerical interuptions from a site? With a large enough buzz around a film and making it available to everyone at the same time via the internet the filmmaker would potentially make more money than if they had gone through a distributor.
All of these ideas I have been personally wrestling with. Then the answer came to me: change the already existing Twitter-Based Film festival (RebFest.com) into something better that helps the indie filmmaker build a fan base. The new RebFest.com site is still under renovation. When it is complete we will post info about it.
-John W. Bosley
writer/director of "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" and also the creator of RebFest.com
Filmmaker's claim the problem is that many independent distributors (mini-majors, etc) have either gone bankrupt or are no longer acquiring films. The distributors would probably claim the fact that in prior years they were unable to make a profit off the films they did acquire is the problem. I believe both of these are "symptoms" of the problem.
What's the problem? Simple. No one knows, outside the indie festival circuit, what most of these films are or whether they are worth watching. Just because a film comes out on DVD or runs in a theater doesn't mean it's something you or I want to watch. It just means that it came out on video or had a theatrical release.
Some would say I'm talking about marketing. But I'm talking about more than just marketing, though. Real marketing is great. My definition would be "communicating a message about what you have to offer". I's not spin, spam, or manipulation... or atleast it shouldn't be.
But we need more than just marketing/advertising; we need to apply the simple principles of "Tested Advertsing" to reach the right niche market for each film and to build a fan base of support for it. Claude Hopkins (the father of the "coupon") created a simple concept using coupons to track what type of ads (on the coupon) drew the largest amount of customers. By doing this he was able to find out what was the best way to promote a product to the consumer.
If indies were able to have their potential audience, beyond the indie crowd that gathers at the fests, interact with their material and react to it, they would be able to gather info on how to best promote their film. This would help the filmmaker understand who would want it the most. There is an audience out there for every film, some are large audiences, some are small.
The problem that the distributors had was that they would see a film at a fest gain some huge attention, but then wouldn't see the same thing when it was distributed nation wide to the main stream audience. Why would that happen? Simple. The film probably catored better to a niche market amongst the indie crowd and less amongst the main stream crowd. The distributors needed to "test" the film more to see who to really reach out to and how to commicate the message of what the film offers best.
There are tons of distribution avenues that filmmakers can take. Some are considering the DIY approach, others are looking to ideas like openindie.com. My consern is that if your film ends up at a theater, but no one knows about it until it arrives, why would anyone be coming to see it?
Imagine a film like "Blair Witch" builds a huge amount buzz about the film and then was released it for people to watch PPV or with limited commerical interuptions from a site? With a large enough buzz around a film and making it available to everyone at the same time via the internet the filmmaker would potentially make more money than if they had gone through a distributor.
All of these ideas I have been personally wrestling with. Then the answer came to me: change the already existing Twitter-Based Film festival (RebFest.com) into something better that helps the indie filmmaker build a fan base. The new RebFest.com site is still under renovation. When it is complete we will post info about it.
-John W. Bosley
writer/director of "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" and also the creator of RebFest.com
Thursday, July 23, 2009
My Econimic Stimulus Plan for Indie Films
El Mariachi Meets Star Wars???
by: John W. Bosley
Why is indie filmmaking dying? Why is it that there are more festivals, more content, yet less successful new filmmakers? I have a simple answer: We're not bringing enough to the show.
There is better equipment, but independent filmmakers aren't making better films... They are just making more of them. Imagine a tourist attraction like Six Flags or Disney World. Instead of a bracelet to ride every ride, you have to pay for each one. Tons of people, when the economy is great, are coming to enjoy the rides and every ride is making money... But, when times are tough and if you have to pay for each one, then people are pickier... some of the smaller rides won't make any money.
The definition for independent film is a film done independently of Hollywood money, which can be a little fuzzy... George Clooney can make a film from his own bank account (made by working as an actor on Hollywood films) and it is called an indie film just as much as some kid scrapping together his tax refund to shoot something in his backyard.
What made indie filmmaking different was the so-called "digital revolution?" Cameras became more affordable, people were able to shoot more and risk less. What happened wasn't better content, just more of it.
So how do we change it? Anyone who follows me on Twitter and has read my bio knows that I don't describe myself as an "independent filmmaker," but instead a "revolutionary." This is my reasoning: Indie films have a reputation of being either "small personal films" or "cheap B movies." I hate to be so honestly blunt about it, but I will be. My concern is the audience's expectations. Most expect all independently produced films to look alike. With all the new technology available, "the sky is the limit" and yet we still see the same material.
If you have a great "small personal film" that you believe needs to be made, than please go ahead a make it. Just don't do what many filmmakers I've met via Twitter and elsewhere have done. If you want to make something that looks more like a blockbuster film, don't settle for making a "small personal film" just because you don't think an indie filmmaker can accomplish a blockbuster. --Just do it!
Back to what is killing indies: we can't compete with high concept film ideas with our small concept ideas. It's plain and simple. If an average audience member has only one movie that they can watch, the majority will choose the high concept film over the small personal film. Simple statistics.
It used to be that if you had a celeb in your film, you would attract a larger audience. Both Variety and LA Times have reported that it isn't that way any longer. The only thing drawing people is a really great idea... and I would add also something that looks "hard to make." Since anyone can pick up a DV or HD camera for a few thousand... why should they pay to watch something they "think" they can make?
When I was a kid we were told that books were like visiting another world. I will watch a TV show that looks like my regular life, but I won't pay top dollar at a theater for a film about a regular life. I want LARGER than life.
My point is that you need to make your film feel larger than life. You don't have to change the premis, just give it a grander feel. But that would be too difficult, right? I thought so too... than I decided to "push the envelope" with AMNESIA and realized that when I was done production I could have "pushed it" even more. Trying the impossible, isn't as impossible as you might think. The truth is, my greatest lesson from my project was that "we are only restricted by the limits of our imagination."
A great example of going big was the movie Snow White. In today's terms it wouldn't count for much, but in the 1920's it was unimaginable for someone to make a animated full length feature film. However, Disney figured out that by doing "keyframing" he could make something that large without having to hire all pro animators. [The concept of "Keyframing" came from Snow White. He would have the pro animators draw the "key frames" while having the apprentices do the frames that would be less noticeable within the scene.] By doing this he cut down his budget and created a piece of history.... he just found a way.
What we need right now is El Mariachi meets Star Wars: a low budget film with an grand high concept idea. [El Mariachi was Robert Rodriguez's 7k film that caught Hollywood's attention.] If that happened it would catch everyone's attention.
How can we call it a "digital revolution" if nothing much really changed?
(If you still want to pursue a "small personal film" then I would recommend building a fan base by connecting on sites like Fans of Film or rebfest.com)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
MJ ...Human Like Me?
Anyone who grew up with me knows that I am not someone who follows trends or fads. When something is popular to do or talk about I generally do not "jump on the bandwagon". For me to write this blog means that I did a little thinking about the man that people came out to say farewell to.
Let's put things into context for you. I was born in 1979, named after the legendary actor John Wayne, who died 4 months before I was born. Thriller came out in 1982. Which means by the time I had ever noticed the songs, the hype had died down. In many ways I missed out on what was the height of his career which would be the 70's-80's.
I'm one of those people who always wants to know the questions to "why" and "how". How did this boy of obscurity end up gaining the attention of respect of millions around the world? And how did he fall from that position of respect, then after his death would gain more attention and respect than ever before?
The one main fact that stood out was that at a young age his talent was put to use which put him in the spot light as the industry was changing which help to give him attention. He blended both music and dance with the dramatics to give a performance that many loved to see over and overg again. Many can sing, many can dance. But for someone to do both and to mix in a sense of stage presence and acting that gave it a full experience is hard to do.
What I found to be the most interesting part of his story was not his talent or personal life, but how the public viewed him. What I saw wasn't something unique to him but something that was the way we treat all celebrities, politicians and other public figures. We praise them for their great work but then almost demonize them for their flaws. People would comment that some of the things he did in his personal life made him "strange". Looking back some of his costumes today would have been seen as "weird" but in that time period could have been see simply as art. When his physical appearance changed people didn't just go "whatever" and move on with life. Instead people speculated. Rumors spread that he bought the bones of the Elephant Man and a machine to keep him young.
Then there were many other things that drew the public attention like the two divorces and the accusations that lead him to court. But then I started thinking to myself, "why do the divorces gain any attention at all?" It's not like he's the only one who has ever been divorced.
I could go on a rant on the accusations that brought him to court, but I'm not going to except to point out an interesting statement that a psychatrist made when evaluating him. http://bit.ly/n5PTu "Katz (psychatrist) said Jackson was a regressed 10-year-old, and did not fit the profile of a pedophile". What stood out to me was the comment about "regressed 10-year-old". Which made me want to watch a few of his music videos the other night. When I looked at the topics of most of his music videos, the uncomforability that girls had said that he showed around kissing, and other things gave me the impression that in fact he may have kept the mentality of a child with him throughout his life.
I looked at his emphasis on children, Neverland Ranch, and tunes like "We Are the Children" and I noticed that he may have kept the child-like mentality about him through his entire life. The sad fact is that with situations with recording companies like Sony it may have worked against him if he kept the child-like mindset. Children usualy have an idealism to them that the people are naturally good and want to do what is right. People in this world can actually do some very dispicable things in the name of selfishness....
But this is all speculation into someone who is not here any longer... my main point is how we view public figures...
It seems that we want them to always do a "song and dance" and not to also be human. People have layers... depth. There's more to a human than what we see on stage. We seem to take a public figures' talent and blow it up to be larger than life. We take their flaws and do the same. Like putting a giant microscope over their lives we make everything they do huge and over-exagerated... and this makes their lives hard to live.
Remember Mel Gibson who makes "The Passion of the Christ", which gained critical acclaim and a nomination for awards, then gets drunk and is caught making racial remarks about Jews. I'm not condoning his behavior... but how many other people out there in the world say stupid things when intoxicated?... Then he ends up with a divorce... and that becomes larger than life again.
It seems with our public figures we take any sort of rumor and assume to be true. The rumors spread like a wild fire and whether or not they are true we have already decided their fate. Instead of taking the position of "innocent until proven guilty" we take the impulsive atitude that people during the Salem witch trials did. Someone yells out, "witch" (or fill in blank whatever you accuse someone of) and we just assume to be right because they are a public figure...
My conclussion at the end when I saw bits and pieces of the memorial for MJ was that at the end of the day it's that he was a... "human like me". There are too many layers, to many motivations, too much that went on in his life for me to be able to understand who he really was or anything else. But isn't that what humans are?... Complex.
Let's put things into context for you. I was born in 1979, named after the legendary actor John Wayne, who died 4 months before I was born. Thriller came out in 1982. Which means by the time I had ever noticed the songs, the hype had died down. In many ways I missed out on what was the height of his career which would be the 70's-80's.
I'm one of those people who always wants to know the questions to "why" and "how". How did this boy of obscurity end up gaining the attention of respect of millions around the world? And how did he fall from that position of respect, then after his death would gain more attention and respect than ever before?
The one main fact that stood out was that at a young age his talent was put to use which put him in the spot light as the industry was changing which help to give him attention. He blended both music and dance with the dramatics to give a performance that many loved to see over and overg again. Many can sing, many can dance. But for someone to do both and to mix in a sense of stage presence and acting that gave it a full experience is hard to do.
What I found to be the most interesting part of his story was not his talent or personal life, but how the public viewed him. What I saw wasn't something unique to him but something that was the way we treat all celebrities, politicians and other public figures. We praise them for their great work but then almost demonize them for their flaws. People would comment that some of the things he did in his personal life made him "strange". Looking back some of his costumes today would have been seen as "weird" but in that time period could have been see simply as art. When his physical appearance changed people didn't just go "whatever" and move on with life. Instead people speculated. Rumors spread that he bought the bones of the Elephant Man and a machine to keep him young.
Then there were many other things that drew the public attention like the two divorces and the accusations that lead him to court. But then I started thinking to myself, "why do the divorces gain any attention at all?" It's not like he's the only one who has ever been divorced.
I could go on a rant on the accusations that brought him to court, but I'm not going to except to point out an interesting statement that a psychatrist made when evaluating him. http://bit.ly/n5PTu "Katz (psychatrist) said Jackson was a regressed 10-year-old, and did not fit the profile of a pedophile". What stood out to me was the comment about "regressed 10-year-old". Which made me want to watch a few of his music videos the other night. When I looked at the topics of most of his music videos, the uncomforability that girls had said that he showed around kissing, and other things gave me the impression that in fact he may have kept the mentality of a child with him throughout his life.
I looked at his emphasis on children, Neverland Ranch, and tunes like "We Are the Children" and I noticed that he may have kept the child-like mentality about him through his entire life. The sad fact is that with situations with recording companies like Sony it may have worked against him if he kept the child-like mindset. Children usualy have an idealism to them that the people are naturally good and want to do what is right. People in this world can actually do some very dispicable things in the name of selfishness....
But this is all speculation into someone who is not here any longer... my main point is how we view public figures...
It seems that we want them to always do a "song and dance" and not to also be human. People have layers... depth. There's more to a human than what we see on stage. We seem to take a public figures' talent and blow it up to be larger than life. We take their flaws and do the same. Like putting a giant microscope over their lives we make everything they do huge and over-exagerated... and this makes their lives hard to live.
Remember Mel Gibson who makes "The Passion of the Christ", which gained critical acclaim and a nomination for awards, then gets drunk and is caught making racial remarks about Jews. I'm not condoning his behavior... but how many other people out there in the world say stupid things when intoxicated?... Then he ends up with a divorce... and that becomes larger than life again.
It seems with our public figures we take any sort of rumor and assume to be true. The rumors spread like a wild fire and whether or not they are true we have already decided their fate. Instead of taking the position of "innocent until proven guilty" we take the impulsive atitude that people during the Salem witch trials did. Someone yells out, "witch" (or fill in blank whatever you accuse someone of) and we just assume to be right because they are a public figure...
My conclussion at the end when I saw bits and pieces of the memorial for MJ was that at the end of the day it's that he was a... "human like me". There are too many layers, to many motivations, too much that went on in his life for me to be able to understand who he really was or anything else. But isn't that what humans are?... Complex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)